I am considering buying (for FX) a 24 or a 28mm lens. I already have a 35mm FX/AI lens from film days, but as the decades move on, I want to work with something a little bit wider too.

A friend has a 24mm lens and likes it a LOT.

Whatever, I have not used a 24mm length enough to know so am after input about 24mm vs 28mm as focal lengths; in particular, does the assembled crew think that the difference is worth worrying about or is it really important and/or ... would it be a better buy to go for something like an 18-24mm zoom? Pro and Con views welcome.

i would ask for a little clarification from you, are you willing to shell out the big bucks, 24 1.4G (28 1.8G to a lesser extent) or are you looking at AF-D 2.8s, or in the middle AIS Nikkors?

my experience with the D800 is that the AF-Ds are bad.... if you're looking at 100%(meaning if you would like the capability to crop then this would be a bad choice) it seems that the newer G Faster varients would be a better choice. Don't know too much about AIS, or even how it would compare on a possible 24mp D600(I would assume the D600 increases resolution characteristic of D3x by a factor of 1.2-1.5)

as far as FOV, i would go for the 24, since 28 is too similiar to 35 in my opinion.

14-24mm zoom is good, some people (around here) say the 16-35 F4 is good. 18-35mm variable aperture is the same as AF-D Primes.

starralazn said:
i would ask for a little clarification from you, are you willing to shell out the big bucks, 24 1.4G (28 1.8G to a lesser extent) or are you looking at AF-D 2.8s, or in the middle AIS Nikkors?

The big bucks are too much for me!

Mid-level is my initial objective here - I am very seriously considering spending a few hundred on a 30 year old AI (manual) lens or two to supplement the others I have if the D600 ends up costing a couple of hundred more than we all seem to expect. I am fine with manual focus on more modern cameras (do it already on a D7000), so... That is my fall back plan.

starralazn said:
as far as FOV, i would go for the 24, since 28 is too similiar to 35 in my opinion.

I've personally been using the 24mm f/2.8D on DX to get the field of view around 35mm. I know I get the center sweet spot advantage, but one of my PAD posts from August was using it at f/4.0 and it's pretty sharp there on DX at least. I can't really speak for extreme corner performance since I don't have any full frame cameras.

I've heard the 24 2.8D is better than the 28 optically so it may be worth a look. Stop it down to f/8 and it may be sharp enough for the 24MP sensor of the D600 all over.

bjrichus said:
Mid-level is my initial objective here - I am very seriously considering spending a few hundred on a 30 year old AI (manual) lens or two to supplement the others I have if the D600 ends up costing a couple of hundred more than we all seem to expect. I am fine with manual focus on more modern cameras (do it already on a D7000),

I own the AI 28mm f2 and its awesome. Can be found for around $400 on ebay. Surprisingly heavy for such a little lens. :]

I used to have a 24mm 2.8 D, a 28mm Ais, and a 35mm ZF .2 Zeiss and felt that if you have a 35mm lens then you just need a 24mm. The difference between the 24 and a 28 is quite noticeable, but less so with the differences between a 28 and 35. Don't forget, 20mm lenses are really fun as well! 21mm is also excellent and you get into Zeiss territory haha I have a feeling you are not the only one eagerly waiting for the D600^^

I really find it hard to use MF lenses on today's DSLRs. OK, we did it 25-30 years ago but don't forget we had split center ( what did we call them ?? ) focus screens or the blurry/shiny circle aids in the middle which made focusing a lot easier; they even worked in the dark ( and the viewfinders were probably brighter as they were all FF size )

If you will have focusing problems or not depends on what camera you will be using the 24mm AI on and what you will be shooting. On a FF like the one you plan to buy, with 24mm being a very wide angle lens, you will get everything in focus from 2 meters to infinity at f8. You are also most likely to be using the lens for landscapes which relates to almost no focusing problems. ( I have a feeling SquamishPhoto is using FF )

However, things will be different on your APS-C camera. It won't be a landscape wide angle lens and for reasons I don't have to explain ( everything being the opposite of what I said above ), precise focusing will be a lot harder.

And $400 is quite a lot for 30 year old manual glass which also lacks the special coatings on today's lenses.

OK, I am sitting here laughing this morning.... the fact is, I forget to focus with the manual focus lens sometimes. My 24mm PC, is of course, manual and yet I love it for shooting all scenes but must get into the "manual mood" or I really screw up.

On the other hand, I actually prefer manual focus in general as the focus is where I place the 3rd dimension of the photo. And often finding this with a spot of red is just not as easy as simply moving a ring. My experience was focusing on ground glass and my old "F" bodies both had only ground glass screens as the split image was not always easy to use and again did not show the final effect as well. I had good eyes in those days.

I had both the 24mm and 28mm 2.8s - the 28mm was terrible. Didn't resolve well, CAs, never got sharp - (odd length with DX), too close to 35 or 50mm (on DX). I loved the 24mm to death- literally - motor gears finely froze up. If I hadn't got a X100, I would have bought another for DX. Now on FX, I'm probably going to pick up another used 24mm 2.8.

What I have noticed is the the 2.8s just are not as sharp as the 14-24 or 16-35 and newer lenses. If you are wanting to do stuff where you need optimal sharpness or to crop major shots that is a consideration. (i.e. need to see the texture of bricks on a wall at 100% crop from 20ft away.) If not, then it is a great lens.

From what I have read, it sounds like the old 28mm 2.8 MF lenses were much sharper. Another thing to think of is the Sigma 24mm 1.8, which has been tested and reviewed as their sharpest of their 1.8 primes. It is larger, much larger but could be an option as well.

"What I have noticed is the the 2.8s just are not as sharp as the 14-24 or 16-35 and newer lenses. If you are wanting to do stuff where you need optimal sharpness or to crop major shots that is a consideration. (i.e. need to see the texture of bricks on a wall at 100% crop from 20ft away.) If not, then it is a great lens".

Tao, Yes you are right these newer zooms seemed to be optimized better for digital it seems so they yield better results. The primes were great on the F100, F90x, or F5 etc. Other than price your much better biting the bullet and purchasing a zoom now especially for monster digital resolution machines such as the D800.

I'm also waiting on the D600, and I recently upgraded to a very nice copy of the 28-70mm f/2.8, which is phenomenal. Except the 4mm of wide end, it compares with the 24-70mm. (I actually prefer it)

I also scored a 9+ used Tokina 16-28mm FX last week, which was fantastic, EXCEPT it had a serious back-focus issue that the AF fine tune could not compensate for. (still back-focused even at -20). I sent it back and asked them to fix it or refund the money.

So...I am looking around at primes and 28mm is redundant. Like the comments above, I've heard not so good things about the 28mm AF-D anyway, so I've settled on either 24mm AF-D or the the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D, if the Tokina doesn't work out. I'm leaning toward the 20mm.

That way, I have a prime that sits in the middle of the ultra wide range, I have the 28-70mm, and I don't have to lust after the 14-24mm.

Now to find a replacement to the 80-200mm ED that United Airlines lost...

R8R I have heard that if you can get a good enough sample that the 28-70 can be just as good as the 24-70. You are lucky to have found a good copy it sounds like! I think the thickness of the 28-70mm and Nano coating on the 24-70 caused people to jump over to the 24-70. I shoot a lot of landscapes so I like the location of the manual focus ring on the 24-70. The older 28-70mm AF-S had its manual focus ring farther forward and farther away from the zoom ring. Again not a big deal..

28-70 is 900g for the old version and the 2005-2006 last samples were just under 900g.
The 24-70 comes in at 900g too! Not as thick though the 28-70 is a monster^^

The 24mm 2.8D is no slouch either for under $300 slightly used it's classic straight aperature bladed design render some of the best star burst of any Nikkor ever made. Very sharp if you don't want to drop a months salary on the 1.4G, which I think is overkill considering you can get a very nice 14-24, 24-70, 16-35, and not to mention all the kickass ZF .2 Zeiss lenses 18, 21, 25, 28 it goes on and on. Any of these lenses is cheaper than the 24 G. Don't get me wrong the 24mm 1.4 G is very nice but with all the options out there I don't need one.